In this essay, I will discuss whether the ethics of Aristotle and Kant can be of use in guiding us in how we should

act in our actual lives. I will do this by first giving an outline of the ethical theory of each person with regard to this specific inquiry. Then, I will give an example of concrete questions of moral conduct through a brief outline of the personal considerations I have had in ending a relationship. I will look at my considerations and motives and consider these through the views of each philosopher. I will offer some final remarks by summing up my findings and pointing out some aspects where further work would be suitable.

Introduction
irtue ethics and deontology are both examples of the branch of ethics called normative ethics, which concerns the consideration of moral action and offers particular ethical theories. irtue ethics, which is founded by !lato and more particularly by Aristotle, is concerned with the human well"being and questions of what the good life is and what person we should be. #ithin this context are questions of the assessment of moral conduct. irtue ethics, as is true for ethics in general in the time of Aristotle, thus deal with wider questions than today, where moral is defined in narrower terms. $eontology, with Kant as one of its leading figures, has to do with questions of how we ought to act. %nlike virtue ethics, which claims moral is &uncodifiable', it aims to provide universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. (urthermore, deontology emphasi)es the role of duty, unlike virtue ethics, that has the role of character and virtue as its central concepts.

Aristotle
Aristotle claims that all human actions aim at some end that we consider good. *ost of these ends are means to a higher end, and this, he claims, is eudaimonia, or happiness. +udaimonia is the highest human good, and is pursued for its own sake. +veryone will agree that the highest good is happiness, but what happiness consists of, differs, because people have different lives. Through his ergon ,function- argument, he argues that the life worth living is one in which we reason well. +verything has a function, he claims, and the good of a specific thing, is when it performs its function well. Aristotle derives at reason, or, &activity of the soul in accordance with reason', as being the function of human beings, because this is what sets him aside from plants and animals. .e states that a function is completed well if it is in accord with the proper virtue. Thus, the good for human beings is activity of the soul according to the virtues, and this is the life of eudaimonia. This is not a state, he points out, but an activity. Moreover, we take the human function to be a certain kind of life, and take this life to be activity and actions of the soul that involve reason; hence the function of the excellent man is to do this well and finely. 1 ! "ow each function is com#leted well by being com#leted in accord with the virtue #ro#er $to that kind of thing%. &nd so the human good #roves to be activity of the soul in accord with virtue '() must be in a com#lete life '()*/ .appiness cannot be purely internal, it must exist in the world, and thus it is also in need of external goods and good fortune. #e need the resources to do fine actions. The external goods are for example friendships, which add something to happiness in its own right, and, with the lack of friendships, would take something away from the happiness. 0ot only the addition of certain resources is needed, but also not to be deprived of certain things, such as good children or beauty, is
/ 0+ II, pp.12/ 3/4"/5

necessary for our happiness. To have the good life is therefore also dependent on luck. 6o the best human life, the life of eudaimonia, contains at its center the exercise of virtue. This is where the concept of character enters, because to live virtuously means to have a virtuous character. irtues are states, hexis, which causes its possessors to perform their functions well, and to live a good life requires that we act from such virtuous states. 6o a virtuous person is a person who has ideal character traits, according to his specific life. .aving a virtuous character enables us to perform the optimal actions and have appropriate emotions. A virtuous person, Aristotle would claim, does not act with the intention of achieving any specific consequences or because it is his duty, but because it is in his character to do so. 7uckily, we are all born with the potential of developing the virtues8 virtues do not arise in us naturally, but are acquired by habit. #e have to act in certain ways to train ourselves to be virtuous. The mean irtue is defined as lying in a mean and being determined by the right reason. because it aims at what is intermediate. irtue is a mean,

In all situations, there is an appropriate feeling and action. This is not to say that actions and feelings at all times and for everyone should be the same. .is point is that in everything there is an intermediate in the ob9ect itself, that, which is in the middle of two extremes, and an intermediate relative to us, that which is neither too much or too little, and that these are not always the same. (or humans, one must consider what the appropriate action and feeling is in each specific situation. .is point is, that the appropriate response is always intermediate, not to little, and not too much. In some situations, the appropriate response is extreme anger, in others it is little, or no, reaction at all. Aristotle says that virtue is a state that decides the mean relative to us " relative to us, because each person has its own natural inclinations, and therefore there can be no universal rule that applies for everyone.: #hat determines the mean is the orthos logos, which can be translated to &according to the correct appreciation of the situation';. To know the mean, to know virtue, takes experience and time to develop, and one cannot capture the virtuous response in simply one rule or principle, which always should be followed, they are uncodifiable. To find the intermediate requires knowing ones own inclinations, what we drift into easily. (rom this extreme, we must drag ourselves in the contrary direction in order to hit the good, intermediate, condition, even if this direction is not the intermediate. #e must especially be aware of pleasure and its sources, because, he claims, we are already biased in its favor in 9udging it. In determining whether an action is 9ustly done, it is not sufficient to look at the quality of the action in itself. The one who performs the action has to be in the right state, which means be aware that he is doing them, decide on them for themselves, and do them from a firm an unchanging state 4. .e must have a virtuous character and when one has the appropriate inner dispositions, or states, one will be moved to act in accordance with them. If we have a virtuous character, it seems, we can be sure that our actions are 9ust.

Kant
(or Kant, the highest good is the good will. It is the only thing good without qualification. The will
: 0+ II, pp.12< 3/5 ; =rombie />1:8 5;> 4 0+ II, pp. 121, 3;

makes use of certain &qualities of temperament',courage, resolution- or &talents of the mind',intelligence, wit-, but if the will to use them is not good, these qualities can become bad. #ill is the capacity to act from principles, and will therefore constitutes what is called character, he states.5 +ven happiness, he argues, is dependent of a good will to have the right influence on the mind. A good will is good in itself and its goodness does not lie in what it accomplishes or in its effects, but simply because of its volition and not because of its &fitness to attain some proposed end'.1 To possess the good will, is to act from moral laws and to make decisions based on moral considerations in themselves, not because of any other ends. .aving this character is having moral goodness. ?ur own moral goodness will always be prioriti)ed, he claims, if we are to choose between it and some other ob9ect that we desire. Reason In order to act from moral laws, reason is needed. @eason is a sort of influence on the will, it guides the will and has as its highest vocation, the establishment of a good will. It is through reason that we can formulate maxims, which are sub+ective #rinci#les of action and are conformable with the condition of the sub9ect. The sub9ect acts in accordance with this principle, with this maxim. This is not to be confused with the practical law, which is the principle that applies to all rational beings, it thus being ob+ective, and the principle which we ought to act in accordance with. These practical laws are his formulations of the =ategorical Imperative, which I will return to. & maxim is a sub+ective #rinci#le of action and must be distinguished from the ob+ective #rinci#le, namely, the #ractical law.*, (rom a moral law, we can, through reason, formulate maxims which our actions should, if they are to be morally good, be in accordance with. Duty The concept of duty contains the concept of the good will. According to Kant, one can act in conformity with duty or act from duty. An action only has moral content when it is done from duty. It can be difficult, he says, to make a distinction between these two ways of acting, when an action accords with duty, but the agent also is inclined to do it. If there is also an inclination involved, in the considerations behind acting a certain way, then it has no moral content. ?nly when something is done strictly from duty, without any inclination, does it contain moral value. 0o other motives must cooperate. This may sound contrary to the way we would consider moral behavior today, but defenders of Kant explainA Actions which express a good will should give considerations of duty priority over all other interests, but that actions do not require a character without empathy or emotional warmth. #hat Kant means, they argue, is that we do in fact praise and admire motivating concerns other than duty, but the considerations motivating oneBs actions are not decisive unless they are of moral duty. The kind of duty, that Kant requires us to act from, however, is not the kind we would ordinarily think of. #e will agree, that to do something from duty implies that there is a certain law that we respect, which makes certain actions a duty, like the laws of the city which give us duties as inhabitants of that city. #ith this kind of duty, it would be possible to escape from it by making the
5 Kant /2<58 5:5 1 Kant /2<58 5:1 2 Kant /2<58 5;>, 4th note

law inapplicable to us, e.g. moving to a different city. #e would also only perform this duty, if it was not in conflict with another law that we respected more, e.g. the federal law. KantBs duty, however, is something no one can rationally opt out of. These fundamental laws of reason gives us duties that apply to all rational beings, and there exists no other laws that could diminish our respect for this specific law. Universal laws the categorical imperative *oral considerations thus have a certain powerful place as motivations for acting, which no other considerations surpass. *oral requirements are reasons we cannot ignore, no matter the circumstances. Therefore they have universal validity. Cecause morality has this universal reason" giving force that it does, it must contain a universal law and to break this law would be irrational. Kant gives us the fundamental principle of our moral duties in his &=ategorical Imperative' ,=I-. The first formulation of the =I is in the &formula of universal law'A &ct only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will, that it become a universal law.*< Kant gives us 4 formulations of the =I. These formulations, or &practical principles of the will', are close to a guide for decision making in moral reasoning. Kant explains the =I through the distinction from hypothetical imperatives. .ypothetical imperatives are ones that represent the practical necessity as means to something wanted, categorical imperatives gives actions that are good as such, with no relation to any ends. It applies to us unconditionally, simply because we possess rational wills, and without regard to any ends that we may or may not have. -he categorical im#erative would be that which re#resented an action as ob+ectively necessary of itself, without reference to another end.*. ?ne of KantBs most well known formulations of the =I is the .umanity (ormula, which states as followsA /&ct that you use humanity, whether in your own #erson or in the #erson of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means/10 An often overlooked word in this formula is &merely'. *any take this formula to state that we should never use other people as instruments in any way or the other, and while this is an intuitive idea in many, it is also an almost impossible principle to live up to. .ow is it be possible to never use anyone as instruments in achieving our goalsD Cut Kant doesnBt claim that it is. .e only states, that with people, we should also treat the personBs humanity as an end in itself. It is notable, that it is the humanity in humans we should treat as an end in itself, and not humans as such. ?ur humanity is a collection of features that make us distinctively human, they are certain rational capacities. +very human being that is rational, must have humanity as an ob9ective end. As humanity also is an end in others, we must take their humanity into consideration, in our own plans.

1iscussion
I will now give the main considerations I had, in ending a relationship, to make these sub9ect to
< Kant /2<58 5;4 > Kant /2<58 5;E /E Kant /2<58 5;2

discussion in the views of Aristotle and Kant. In my relationship, I felt content and far from miserable, but I wondered whether I could be happier, and concluded that the mere existence of doubts as to whether I could be happier, proved that my happiness wasnBt so overwhelming after all. I felt that the relationship we had, was the best we could achieve, and so thoughts of trying to change the relationship, or change him, never occurred. I wanted a romantic relationship to be something else, than what it could ever be with him. I considered all my motives and reasons for and against breaking up, over a longer period of time, before I came to the decision to end it.

&ristotle would say...

?ne can look at my pursuit of happiness as the pursuit of eudaimonia. This would require a thorough discussion of the concept of eudaimonia, because eudaimonia is not simply the feeling of contentment with oneBs life, but it could be discussed whether this is not a part of it. As stated earlier, the life of eudaimonia is the life of acting in accordance with virtue, and since the function of humans is to reason, we can see reason as an instrument in being virtuous. To reason implies, among other things, not acting rashly and on impulse, but considering oneBs actions. The fact that I did not end the relationship the moment I had doubts, but took time to consider the pros and cons, could suggest that I acted with reason. Ceing able to recogni)e the wrongness of staying in a relationship and thereby implying that oneBs feelings are the same and that one is fully content with the relationship, if really this is not the case, has to do with the virtue of honesty, one could argue. Though, since virtues are &multi"tracked dispositions'//, it would take much more than 9ust one action, to decide on the virtuousness of the person. ?ne could also argue, that I tried to find the mean, in trying to find the appropriate response to the given situation, to my feelings of doubt. I, for one, knew, that no reaction, not acting, would be an extreme, a vice, and not the right response. $oing nothing would imply not being honest to my partner, and hiding my true feelings of discontentment from him. Adultery, as another vice, was not an option for the same reason as it would imply not being honest. (rom Aristotle, we are given no principles or rules, that we can apply to every situation. The uncodifiability in his virtue ethics mean that the ability to know the mean, i.e. what the appropriate action and emotion is, has to be developed, and that this takes time and is a matter of experience, sensitivity, ability to reason etc. .owever, there is always an appropriate response to every situation. +verything depends on the given situation and the concrete advice to someone will be dependent of the specific person involved, his or her inclinations and function in life. The most concrete advice from Aristotle would be, that the best way to decide what the virtuous action is, in a given situation, would be to ask a virtuous person, what he would do.

2ant would say...

As stated earlier, Kant claims that we through reason formulate our own maxims, which are our own sub9ective principles, which we then act from. (or our actions to be morally good, these maxims have to be consistent with the universal, moral law. The =I is one of such universal laws,
// .ursthouse :EE28 :. paragraph

and the formulations of the =I are what our maxims, or principles, should always, without exception, be in congruence with. To 9udge actions with KantBs perspective, one can thus try to examine which principles he has as the basis of his actions. ?ne could argue, that an underlying principle I had, was acting with the purpose of increasing my own happiness. ?ffhand, this principle could be said to be consistent with the formulas of the =I, since I have not specified how I will act to increase my happiness, but simply that I act so as to increase it. #ould this cause contradictions, in the empirical world, if everyone had this as a principleD It is not obvious, that it would, since the way to increase oneBs happiness, could mean very different things for each person, and that the content of happiness in each person differs. This can be explained by Kant in terms of his assertoric hypothetical imperative. As mentioned, the =I applies to human beings completely without reference to any ends, that we may or may not will. #ithin the other imperative, the hypothetical, he distinguishes between two kinds, based on how the end is willedA the problematic and assertoric. The problematic hypothetical imperative applies to us if there is a merely possible end, that we might or might not will. The assertoric is the end that we must will, and the only end that must be willed, Kant argues, is happiness. Cut since happiness is an indeterminate end, its content differs, and not all people would ascribe the same factors ad important in happiness. Cecause it is an indeterminate end, we can have no imperatives through rationality. ?ne should also consider, whether the end of happiness, was really willed by me, or simply desired or wanted, since these would not be sufficient. #ith regard to KantBs humanity formula, one could discuss whether my principle is in conflict with this. $oes my pursuit of happiness necessarily imply ignoring the agency of others, and only using their humanity as means to my endD Again, not necessarily, would be the answer. .owever, it is certain, that my main purpose is not promoting the humanity in others, but whether Kant suggests that it should be of main focus or if it is &enough' simply not to prevent it, would take further reading of his work. In general, I would be morally good if I made my decisions based solely on moral considerations and not on any other ends. 6ince this was not the case, I was not morally good, according to Kant.

3onclusion
0either Kant or Aristotle can offer us concrete guidance to our actions. #ith Kant, however, we come closer, since he offers his formulas of the =I, from which we can formulate our own principles for testing. Cut to find out, which actions deriving from which principles, would actually be consistent with the universal laws, would require a more thorough reading of the =ategorical Imperative and its formulas. Aristotle refuses to give overall principles that are universal and always applicable, and thus from him is offered the definition of the mean as an overall guideline, and with this, his concept of virtue. A deeper delving into the concept of virtue, which is the mean, could perhaps bring us closer to an understanding of the virtuous character we have to achieve to be sure our actions are right, but we should never expect to find principles that are not situation"dependent, unlike KantBs moral considerations which are fundamental laws, have universal validity, and applicable to all rational human beings, at all times.